Footer menu

Main navigation

Breadcrumb

How to learn to understand a poetry? Part 1

I don't like to lecture, I'm much more interested to do practical work, because today's education is almost not affected by the lecture transmission. In connection with this recall is a great idea Bakhtin about that person to person can only pass the finished value, but not the meaning.

Although we all think meanings. When we read a book, listen to a lecture or just someone else's speech, we are dealing with alienated values. In order to understand them, they need to be translated. From is the definition of what is understanding: "Understanding is a constant external, excluded values in the mental language of inner speech". We think of inner speech, which knows no words. But once we understand someone else's idea, we face a problem: to make others understand what we understand, we must translate the reverse order of our sense of the expropriated value. This value, each understanding also translates into the language of their inner speech and then realizes it for themselves already.

The main problem of understanding and misunderstanding is that each time, the translation is a loss of the sense. As with any translation the vocabulary of different languages do not coincide in their semantics and connotations that is, all sorts of contextual meaning and in General can be quite different in different languages. Ideal full translation is unattainable. And then we are talking about an approximate translation.

How to understand a poetic text? This is a huge hermeneutical and philological problem. Empirically I came to the conclusion that the first stage the poetic text can be reduced to a few (I have 4) basic strategies. And the next stage is more difficult there is actually linguistic, things start to come into its own.

Let's check how these strategies work. My experience shows me that if you master them, a considerable body of poetic texts will be available for understanding.

Is there any objective criteria that differs between good poetry and bad poetry? Is it possible to find any reliable support in the evaluation of the poem, not to fall in the proverbial saying "tastes differ". I think you can.

Good poets know the main property of a good poem the fundamental unpredictability of the next step in terms of rhyme, meter, etc. A good poem is constructed like this: the first stanza sets up the reader for a certain rhyme scheme and size. The next verses begin to be perceived by inertia, and then the poet breaks this inertia of the newly formed reader's perception. Remember mockery of a primitive reader who is waiting for the rhyme "cold roses".

One of the first strategies of understanding the poetic text is the strategy of "biographical code". It lies in the fact that we interpret the poem based on biographical fact, which was put in its basis. Take the example of poem "In the depths of the ores". It won't be clear until we know what the biographical episode was put in its basis.

Sometimes poetic text becomes completely abstract situations. An example of this is the tenth, which is almost verbatim reports of statements of the heard at the meetings of the Union of welfare, where sometimes attended. Such texts can be taken as a direct historical source.